The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.

[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You’ve taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.

[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You’ve taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You’ve very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable’. The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME’. As you’ve gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.

[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You’ve taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You’ve very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable’. The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME’. As you’ve gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.

The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.

[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You’ve taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You’ve very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable’. The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME’. As you’ve gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.

My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn’t think we would see football this year) said ‘ if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn’t is quite within their rights not too.’ So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn’t go back in July, we can’t go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.

[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You’ve taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You’ve very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable’. The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME’. As you’ve gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.

My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn’t think we would see football this year) said ‘ if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn’t is quite within their rights not too.’ So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn’t go back in July, we can’t go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

So you are agreeing that nothing should happen until it is medically safe.

The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.

[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You’ve taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You’ve very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable’. The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME’. As you’ve gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.

My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn’t think we would see football this year) said ‘ if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn’t is quite within their rights not too.’ So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn’t go back in July, we can’t go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

So you are agreeing that nothing should happen until it is medically safe.

Thats grand so.

End of.

That’s what I have said all along. July. You’ve just wasted I don’t know how long because you tried to do a hatchet job on me and failed.

The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.

[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You’ve taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You’ve very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable’. The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME’. As you’ve gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.

My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn’t think we would see football this year) said ‘ if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn’t is quite within their rights not too.’ So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn’t go back in July, we can’t go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

So you are agreeing that nothing should happen until it is medically safe.

Thats grand so.

End of.

That’s what I have said all along. July. You’ve just wasted I don’t know how long because you tried to do a hatchet job on me and failed.

A hatchet job

Jesus - its a debate as you said - lets not over dramatise it on a board of mostly anonymous people

The lockdown has never been about protecting young, healthy people from the virus. Where has that idea come from? Why are people arguing against this straw man?

It's about stopping young, healthy people (and everyone else) being a conduit for virus to not so young and not so healthy people.

Inherent in the argument that young, healthy people don't die, and should therefore be allowed to play away, is the notion that old and sick people should die so that this can happen. That's reprehensible.

[/b]

. IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it. So your young healthy footballer or worker or whatever will not be passing it on to someone vulnerable as they will still be isolating.

You wanted to....IMO the best way forward would be to shield/lockdown/cocoon whatever you want to call it, those who are vulnerable and let everyone else get on with it.

Not much of advice of experts or when its safe in this post though?

Just lock up one group of people and let the rest at it

You’ve taken one part of one message and totally ignored the context and the numerous other messages I have sent. So not much point trying to have a rationale discussion with you.

Off course not - because you have clearly backtracked - how can you have a rationale discussion with anyone when you ignore what you have said.

Explain the context with the above - perhaps I have misunderstood what you are saying?

Not back tracking at all. You’ve very conveniently left out the line before the start of the quote, which says ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable’. The important part being THERE WILL COME A TIME’. As you’ve gone back a number of pages to find this quote to twist it, you will also have seen that I have repeatedly said that any changes should take place when the advice says so, which at present is July. Come then every one should have the choice, within the guidelines. And this included opening pitches or whatever else is laid out.

But there wont come a time where it is no longer possible - this will go on as long as it takes in order to be medically safe.

You have only just started saying follow medical advice in recent responses - the beginning of your debate gave no mention of medical advice.

My very first message on the topic (other than saying i didn’t think we would see football this year) said ‘ if come July I am told that it is safe to go to stage 4 and start training/playing again, I will be happy to do so, and anyone who isn’t is quite within their rights not too.’ So I mentioned July in my first message on it as this was the date the MEDICAL ASVICE gave. The beginning of my debate also said when the time comes and at no time mentioned doing it right now. And there will be a time...July. The whole point of my participation in this thread was that people are saying the we shouldn’t go back in July, we can’t go back while social distancing or until there is a vaccine. I have been saying that I believe that as things stand July is when the medical experts have told the government we should go back therefore that is when we should have the option to go back. And I have clarified it more than once.

So you are agreeing that nothing should happen until it is medically safe.

Thats grand so.

End of.

That’s what I have said all along. July. You’ve just wasted I don’t know how long because you tried to do a hatchet job on me and failed.

A hatchet job

Jesus - its a debate as you said - lets not over dramatise it on a board of mostly anonymous people

I fundamentally disagreed with one of your posts and said so.

No, you cut and pasted one line from a post, ignoring the line before which gave it context and also the messages before and after which made quiet clear what was meant. There’s a difference doing that and debating on what I actually said.

It didnt give it context - it didnt mention waiting until it was medically safe at all - ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable you then went on to say what you thought was the best way forward and again again no mention of waiting until it was safe medically.

You cant expect someone to read your mind.

Anyway - I couldnt read your mind or guess what you were thinking - no point continuing this - its futile

It didnt give it context - it didnt mention waiting until it was medically safe at all - ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable you then went on to say what you thought was the best way forward and again again no mention of waiting until it was safe medically.

You cant expect someone to read your mind.

Anyway - I couldnt read your mind or guess what you were thinking - no point continuing this - its futile

It said come a time, therefore pretty clear it wasn’t meaning now. And given the fact the previous message and my first message on the topic had mentioned July then I think it’s pretty clear you were being twisted with your attempt. But your correct it is futile, you spent numerous posts aimed at me to basically get the point that I stated days ago in my first post.....July (which is when the medical advisors have said).

It didnt give it context - it didnt mention waiting until it was medically safe at all - ‘There will come a time, be it for work, football whatever, where this will no longer be possible/acceptable you then went on to say what you thought was the best way forward and again again no mention of waiting until it was safe medically.

You cant expect someone to read your mind.

Anyway - I couldnt read your mind or guess what you were thinking - no point continuing this - its futile

It said come a time, therefore pretty clear it wasn’t meaning now. And given the fact the previous message and my first message on the topic had mentioned July then I think it’s pretty clear you were being twisted with your attempt. But your correct it is futile, you spent numerous posts aimed at me to basically get the point that I stated days ago in my first post.....July (which is when the medical advisors have said).

Whatever makes you happy man.

If you think that is what you meant then fair fucks to you. I didn't have a clue.....and I wasn't alone

Are there any punishments for clubs caught training, or using their grounds? By and large, clubs seem to be adhering, but still.Has any club been caught out in any way?You’d imagine that clubs would at least have a minimal amount of cop on and wouldn’t let it remotely come to that.